The aim of this paper is to help a decision maker to decide whether a road tunnel is safe enough with respect to fire safety. Safety objectives as well as societal, ethical and political objectives are identified for the decision. It is argued that most uni-directional tunnels that comply with minimum EC requirements, with a longitudinal ventilation system along the traffic flow fails safely in the event of fire. Catastrophic fires should not be an issue, even for a risk averse decision maker. Considering the issue of fairness the tunnel is argued to be safe enough, and resources are either better used elsewhere or should be allocated so that the utility is maximized. For high-risk bi-directional tunnels, catastrophic fires could be an issue, in particular if there is no separate emergency pathway. Then a risk aversive decision maker may take extra safety measures against such fires. A risk neutral decision maker would allocate resources so that the utility is maximized. Road tunnel regulation should set minimum requirements rather than cautionary requirements and allow for a probabilistic approach.